SHRI DHANRAJ LAMA vs MSME

1

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
[Reserved]

Original Application No. 42/84/2022

Reserved on: 28.07.2026

Pronounced on: 16.09.2026

Coram:-

HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. SANJIV KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER


Between

Shri Dhanraj Lama
Son of Late Dawai Ganjen Lama
Executive (Village Industries/Rural Engineering & Bio
Technology), Office of the Director, State Office, Khadi &
Village Industries Commission, Government of India,
Paona Bazaar, Imphal, Manipur, PIN—795001.


......Applicant

[By Advocate: Mr. A. Ahmed, Ms. D. Goswami, Ms. A.
Saharia]


-AND-

l. The Union of India,
represented by the Secretary
to the Government of India,
Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises,
Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad
Road, New Delhi, PIN-110108.

2. The Chairman,
Khadi & Village Industries Commission,
Ministry of Micro Small & Medium
Enterprise, Government of India, Irla Road,
OA No. 42/84/2022
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

2

Vile Parle(W), Mumbai, PIN-400056.

3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Directorate of Vigilance, Khadi & Village
Industries Commission, Government of India, Irla Road,
Vile Parle (W), Mumbai, PIN-400056.










....Respondents


[By Advocate: Sri V.K. Bhatra, Sr. CGSC ]

OA No. 42/84/2022
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

3

ORDER
PER R.S. DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

The instant OA has been filed by the applicant praying
for the following relief(s):-

8.1] To set aside and quashed the Inquiry Report dated
07.02.2020 and Penalty order bearing No.VIG/DP/NG—
30/dbl/2020-21 dated 29.09.2020/08.10.2020 whereby the
Disciplinary Authority has imposed Major penalty against the
Applicant by reducing his pay scale to lower stage by one
increment in the time scale of pay for a period of two years
without cumulative effect w.e.f. 01.l0.202O with Recovery of
Rs.25,000/— from his monthly salary at the rate of
Rs.2,500/— per month for 10 (Ten) months.
8.2] To set aside and quash the Appellate Authority rejection
order bearing No.VIG/DP/NG–30/DBL/2020-21/1357 dated
27/28.01.2021.
8.3] To pass any other appropriate relief (s) which the
Applicant is entitled and as may be deem fit and proper by
this Hon’ble Tribunal.
8.4] To pay the cost of the application.


2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant at
present is working as Executive (Village Industries/Rural
Engineering & Bio Technology) in the Office of the Director,
State Office, KVIC Imphal, Manipur. Meanwhile, Disciplinary
Authority has proposed to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings
against him by alleging that while he was functioning as
OA No. 42/84/2022
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

4

Dealing Assistant at State Office, KVIC, Itanagar during the
period from year 2011 to 2014, he had recommended for
passing the fake and fabricated bills/cash memos amounting
to Rs. 33,000/-. He has submitted his Written Statement of
defence and denied the charges made against him. Inquiry
Proceedings against him was held on different dates. Out of
05 witnesses, 03 witnesses appeared before the Inquiry
Authority. Presenting officer has submitted his written brief,
wherein he has clearly mentioned that during regular enquiry,
it was revealed that the bill of Rs. 25,000/-(PD-1/S-1) was
made towards payment of hall rent to State Science Centre for
organizing workshop of PMEGP was not processed/put up by
Applicant and the same was put by another officer. However,
rest of the other bill/Cash memos vide PD-2 to PD-4 were
processed by Shri Dhanraj Lama but for the same, vital 02
witnesses did not appear to authenticate the allegations.
Applicant has submitted his written reply by alleging that
Presenting Officer could not make available the Xerox of other
relevant documents etc. on his request. Inquiry Report dated
07.02.2020 was provided to the Applicant with a direction to
submit his reply/representation. Applicant has submitted his
reply on 05.03.2020 and stoutly rebutted the Inquiry Officer
OA No. 42/84/2022
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

5

Report. Respondent No. 3 has imposed Major penalty against
him. Applicant has submitted his Appeal but Respondent
No.2- Appellate Authority has rejected the Appeal of the
Applicant without putting his signature but it was signed by
the Disciplinary Authority on behalf of Appellate Authority
Hence, this Original Application.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated
the averments made in written statement and submitted that
the Applicant while submitting his reply to the findings of the
Inquiry Report, vide letter dated 05.03.2020 has admitted
that, he had submitted the bills/vouchers as dealing
Assistant which were approved by the concerned authority.
The Inquiry Officer in his report has clearly stated that, out of
total recommended payment of Rs. 34,000/-, the bill voucher
worth Rs. 25,000/- were confirmed as fake and false and not
issued by the shop/establishment owners who had appeared
as witness and recorded their statements. The balance
amount of Rs. 9,000/- which consisted of bus tickets could
not be verified due to non-appearance of witness. Further, the
contention of Shri Lama that bill of Rs. 25,000/- was
processed by Shri J. C. Deka, Supervisor-III (PCBI) and not by
OA No. 42/84/2022
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

6

him, is also contrary to the facts on record. Shri Lama has
processed the bill of Rs. 25,000/- which was approved by the
Assistant Director(I/c). During the course of Inquiry
Proceedings, he has also failed to counter the charges either
on documentary evidence or on oral evidences and therefore
his contention is not correct. Further, the Applicant has
stated that PW-3 during the cross examination has admitted
that the bill/cash memo for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- dated
30.03.2021 was not passed and signed by Shri Dhanraj
Lama, the same was passed and signed by Shri J. C. Deka.
However, in reply to the next question, the PW-3 has further
added that the Final Authority for passing and payment of any
bill voucher vests with In-Charge of the office. However, the
In-Charge considered the payments based on processing by
the concerned Dealing Assistant. It is further stated that, the
Applicant has already admitted in reply that he had submitted
the bills/vouchers as Dealing Assistant. Being a Dealing
Assistant, it was his duty and responsibility to verify the
genuineness of the bills/cash memos and authenticity of the
programme conducted by the NGOs before processing the
bills/vouchers for payment which he has failed. Therefore, the
contention of the Applicant is not correct. In the regular
OA No. 42/84/2022
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

7

hearing held on 18.11.2019 at State Office, Guwahati, the
Presenting Officer clarified before the Inquiry Officer that, the
documents referred to by the CSE were under the custody of
CBI. He was provided with the list of defence documents by
the Central Office for obtaining the same from the CBI
through CBI Court. As there was huge volume of papers, it
was not possible for him to cross-verify the documents with
the list. However, he handed over the documents whatever he
had received to Shri Dhanraj Lama on 29.09.2019. Thereafter,
the IO had taken the documents submitted by Shri Dhanraj
Lama on record and the CSE was permitted to furnish the
defence on the merit of these documents. The Applicant has
signed the said record note. In the said composite case
involving Assistant Director-I level Officer, the Chief Executive
Officer, being disciplinary Authority after taking into account
the findings of the Inquiry Officer, reply submitted by the
applicant - Shri Dhanraj Lama and all the material facts and
evidences on record decided to impose the said major penalty
along with recovery of Rs. 25,000/-. Further, the Hon'ble
Chairman, being the Appellate Authority, in exercise of powers
conferred under Regulations 23 of KVIC Employees
(CCA)Regulations, 2003, carefully considered the imputation
OA No. 42/84/2022
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

8

of misconduct levelled against the applicant and taking all
aspects into consideration, as referred, rejected the appeal
preferred by Shri Dhanraj Lama and upheld the Order dated
08.10.2020 issued by the Disciplinary Authority for
imposition of major penalty. As per the provisions contained
in Regulation 24 of KVIC Employees (CCA) Regulations, 2003,
the Chief Executive Officer, being the Disciplinary Authority,
conveyed the decision of the Chairman, Appellate Authority
for rejecting the appeal preferred by the Applicant against the
penalty Order dated 08.10.2020. The Respondents beg to
state that, as regards recovery of Rs. 25,000/- apart from
reduction to pay, it is submitted that, the disciplinary
Authority has imposed the penalty considering the gravity of
the misconduct of Shri Dhanraj Lama as he had processed
the bill for Rs. 25,000/- without verifying the veracity of the
bill and thus, caused pecuniary loss to the Commission to the
extent of Rs. 25,000/-. Thus, the imposition of the said
penalty has been justified and is within provision of KVIC
Employees (CCA) Regulations, 2003. As per the Rules, there
is no legal bar to the awarding of penalty of recovery from pay
with any other penalty. Therefore, penalty for reduction in pay
imposed on the Applicant along with recovery of the loss of Rs.
OA No. 42/84/2022
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

9

25,000/- caused to the Commission does not amount to
double punishment. As such, the contention of the Applicant
is not sustainable and the action of the Respondent is legal
and lawful. Therefore, there is no question of violation of any
of the provisions of the Constitution as alleged. Therefore, the
present application is devoid of merit and liable to be
dismissed with cost.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that in
the letter dated 05.03.2020, the Applicant has clearly
submitted that "Bill/Voucher” amounting to Rs. 25,000/-
towards organizing the PMEGP Workshop which was not
recommended by him and handwriting/signature appeared in
the Bill dated 30.03.2012 does not belong to him. Moreover,
the Presenting Officer Brief also clarified that the Applicant
has not processed/put up the Bill of Rs.25,000/- and the
balance amount of Rs. 9000/- which is considered bus tickets
Rs.2000/-, Rs.1000/- and Rs. 6000/- respectively, could not
be verified due to non-appearance of witnesses. However, the
Enquiry Officer without going through the relevant evidence
has concluded the enquiry and on the basis of such perverse
finding, the Disciplinary authority has imposed the major
OA No. 42/84/2022
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

10

penalty on the Applicant. Further, the Respondents have
repeated same statements despite of knowing the facts that
the alleged charge of the Applicant has not been proved
during the enquiry. In these paras, the Respondents are trying
to justify their action without going through the depth of the
case. However, it is crystal clear that the punishment order
passed by the Respondents is totally illegal and cryptic as it
did not disclosed as to how the charge has been proved
against the Applicant.
Counsel further states that if the Appellate authority
i.e. Respondent No.2 has actually passed the Appellate order,
then, he would have examined the records of the case before
upholding the penalty order of Disciplinary authority. i.e.
Respondent No.3 and the record of the case shows that there
is no evidence which indicates that the Applicant is guilty in
the alleged charge. Firstly, the Respondents have initiated the
Disciplinary proceeding against him after about 10 years from
the alleged incident which is not permissible in the eye of law.
Moreover, the Disciplinary Proceedings conducted against the
Applicant can be considered as unfair as the Disciplinary
authority has overlooked the report of Presenting Officer. The
OA No. 42/84/2022
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

11

purpose of appointment of Presenting Officer is to finding the
facts by presenting the documentary evidence, leading the
oral evidence on behalf of the Disciplinary authority, cross
examination of defence witnesses, preparation and
presentation of written brief etc. In this instant case, the
Respondents have also appointed Presenting Officer but
imposed Penalty on the Applicant without considering the
findings of Presenting Officer. Therefore, it is clear that the
impugned penalty order is absolutely a non-speaking and
cryptic as it did not disclose as to how the charge has been
proved against the Applicant. There was a clear non-
application of mind by the Respondents as well as arbitrary
and pre-minded before initiation of Disciplinary proceedings.

5. Heard the parties, perused the records and considered
the submission of the parties.

6. After assessing the entire records and submission of
both the parties, it is noted that the DA considered the
findings of the Inquiry Officer, reply of CSO and considered all
the material facts on record and decided to impose a major
penalty on the Applicant. The decision of the Appellate
OA No. 42/84/2022
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

12

Authority was also communicated by the Disciplinary
Authority to the applicant as per the provisions contained in
the Regulation 24 of KVIC E (CCA) Regulations, 2003. The
Disciplinary Proceedings were conducted as per the provisions
contained in the Regulation 10 of KVIC E (CCA) Regulations,
2003 as reasonable opportunities were provided to the
Applicant during the Inquiry Proceedings by following the
principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that, the
penalties were imposed on him for good and sufficient reasons
and that too by following the due process of law. After
completion of the inquiry proceedings, the Disciplinary
Authority imposed major penalty upon all the officials
including the applicant. The penalty order issued to the
Applicant was clear and unambiguous and the same was
issued after due application of mind by the Disciplinary
Authority taking into account the seriousness of the
misconduct committed by the Applicant. The Appellate
Authority had rejected the appeal after thorough
consideration of the whole issue and after due application of
mind. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there
was no infirmity or illegality on the part of the Appellate
Authority in rejecting the appeal of the Applicant.
OA No. 42/84/2022
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR

13


7. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, the
impugned orders does not warrant interference. Accordingly,
the instant OA stands dismissed being misconceived.

8. Pending M.A.(s), if any, stand disposed of. No costs.

9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.


(SANJIV KUMAR) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SK/



OA No. 42/84/2022
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
KUMAR
KUMAR